coolhandluke121

On that note, I'm not gonna do it again but I once crunched the combined numbers for some of the total rejects who pitched for the Brewers last year: Espino Milone Peralta Guerra Blazek Feliz Scahill Marinez Wang Webb Jungmann They had an e.r.a of 6 or 7 in the innings equivalent of 18 full games. They were basically a tanking team to start the season, but they won't be relying on any guys like that from day 1 this year. That's why I'm not overly concerned about the staff even without Nelson and with some likely regression for Anderson and Suter.

I see your argument, and raise you Tommy Milone. Granted, there weren't as many candidates for a spot last year, but recent history does dictate that they have made odd rotation decisions. Nobody in the minors was ready for a chance though. They were starting guys like Blazek when they had to call someone up. That's not the case anymore. Obviously I want the young guys to get a chance, so maybe that's a bias in what I'm predicting will happen. But I think the rational thing would be to choose guys in their physical prime or approaching it, as opposed to washed-up guys who might have been better in their prime but are unlikely to be now.

Yep, Miley and Gallardo are strictly lottery tickets at this point. This team is not choosing the Suppans, Garzas, Lohses, and Wolfs over guys like Suter and Woodruff anymore. That's just pure laziness. Gallardo and Miley would have to be really good (not just numbers, but how they look) in spring training to get that chance.

This is the worst cliche ever. Most of those "elite closers" were once just a talented reliever who you would have said wasn't a proven closer and therefore no playoff team should rely on him. And you would have used that as your argument for why you shouldn't trade the one you already had. According to your logic, Knebel would have been the guy you can't rely on literally not even one year ago, and that's why they had to sign Feliz and give him a shot. It's strictly circular logic, too. Playoff teams are going to have good bullpens and they're going to use their most talented relievers to close. That doesn't make their most talented reliever irreplaceable. The closers vs. non-closers stuff is ridiculous.

Yep. I was okay with that all along. I like Cain a lot despite his age, but the other big free agents have too many question marks. If you look at some of the crap pitchers they trotted out there much of the year while still managing to win 86 games, it's hard to believe that they won't be squarely in the wild card chase now that they have legit MLB players filling nearly every roster spot from day 1, even with the likely regression at a few positions.

And yet they haven't made any other win-now trades or signings. They're thinking about the present and the future equally, as they should, and doing a damn good job of it. I doubt there's a great offer out there for Knebel but if someone wanted to over-pay, I'm confident Stearns would take the deal; being able to replace him this year would be the least of his worries. They're playing 3-d chess here compared to the typical casual fan who wants to oversimplify everything into win-now mandates and closers vs. non-closers and assuming what a guy did last year is a good indication of the player that he is. That's why they're in this position in the first place.

If you want to bring that stuff here, look back at what guys I wanted to trade in the past and see how it worked out. Tell everyone all about it, too, but have the decency to be accurate and thorough. Otherwise do everyone a favor and keep it about the players and not about the poster. I don't want to "trade everyone" but I will not be one of those homers who is so attached to their team's own players that they refuse to even entertain the idea.

That's not what I meant. It's over-paying in trades that was a short-lived fad. People are realizing you don't have to do that to have a good bullpen.

Yep, 2nd paragraph is totally on point. Stearns understands it. Look how much complaining there was here when one mediocre reliever after another signed for $6-8m per year or more early in the offseason; thankfully, Stearns was patient and wise through it all. Talent-wise, there's not nearly that much difference between most of the guys who happened to have a good year or two recently and many of the guys who didn't. It's just reactionary. Knebel is more talented than those guys, but he's not somebody you need to cling to. I wouldn't say Davis's contract is evidence that the fad is still there. They're not giving up much in trade value for him, and Davis is a consistent top-flight talent with many years of production on his resume. Also, it's not really a fad if only one team is still over-paying that much for a closer, though I would say that a lot of teams are feeling pretty stupid after paying so much for guys like Swarzak in this market. I see the days of getting 2-3 solid prospects for guys like Thornburg being over.

And I've loved him since they got him in the Gallardo trade. But if anyone really thinks he wasn't lucky last year and wants to make an offer worthy of a young Kimbrel, bye Corey. We'll figure something else out. The whole closer thing is kind of a joke. They didn't have a closer when they traded K-Rod and Jeffress and Thornburg and Smith and Fetters and Kolb and Plesac, or when Feliz and Axford and Turnbow and Doug Henry and Doug Jones and Hoffman and Gagne bombed and... oh, what do you know, any talented reliever who isn't scared of the pressure can do the job more than adequately and often be even better than the guy he replaced. It's a revolving door. There's not that much difference in win probability between average ones and great ones. They don't pitch many innings. They can max out on velocity and put up ridiculous numbers in short stints. Most of them are just failed starters. The fact that so many of the best closers make the hall of fame when literally thousands upon thousands of players who won't sniff the hall have been more valuable and harder to replace is one of the biggest jokes in sports. That's why it's a moot point of course. Nobody is going to give up a haul for a guy like Knebel now. They all learned their lesson at the 2016 deadline, where the Brewers especially played a bunch of teams like total chumps. It was a Royals-induced fad. Teams were right about the importance of effective relievers in their prime but dead wrong about what you have to give up to get them, and especially wrong about how much performance can vary from year to year. They won't get a great offer so it's all hypothetical. I like him a lot and I'm glad he's a Brewer. He gives them an advantage. However, you take advantage of any impulsive, impatient team that's willing to overpay for immediate gratification as soon as you get the chance.

Aroldis Chapman disagrees with your assessment about control. Projections? Projections? Is that your argument? No, the argument, backed up by decades of conclusive statistical evidence, is that walking as many people as Knebel does makes it really hard to consistently be a top-flight reliever. Aroldis Chapman? ONE counter-example? That's your argument?

Maybe the Orioles. I can't imagine the Brewers care even a little bit about the Rays compensation. Well I don't think we care about the Rays part, just us giving up another pick. And they forfeit a pick no matter what he signs for. The Rays get a sandwich pick, and it will be about 1 round lower if he gets less than $50m. The advantage to the Brewers? It wouldn't bump their 2nd-round pick down 1 spot, because it would not be a comp round A pick if it's less than $50m. It would be comp round B, which would still bump every draft pick below it down one spot.

I shouldn't complain because I was guilty of the same mistake once, but at least I bothered to do some research and double-check everything... and I'm not a professional like Bowden. The contract doesn't affect which pick the signing team forfeits any more. It only affects what pick the previous team receives. Those picks are independent of each other. You only save your pick if you wait until after the draft. Brewers in bold. They gave up their 3rd pick for Cain and would give up their 4th for Cobb, Arrieta, or Lynn unless they wait until after the draft. Period. Could sign them for $1 and they'd forfeit the pick.

Knebel currently lacks the control to duplicate what he did last year and is a pretty solid bet to regress. I'm pretty sure he's projected to have an e.r.a. of about 3.5 but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. In any case, it's kind of silly to talk about him as if you'd be giving away a great closer; there's a very good chance he's not even one of the 3 or 4 best relievers on the team this year. Barnes or Williams could easily be this year's Knebel. Making personnel decisions is all about being better than your rivals at predicting performance. Any Average Joe can say "Look at what he did last year; no way you trade him!" But if everyone's productivity was already known in advance, the standings would be the same as the rankings of what teams can afford to pay their players. Despite all the complaints about being a small market, many of which are justified, places like this are where they can beat the big markets by regularly out-"guessing" them. And I put that in quotation marks because it's not really about guesswork, so much as it is about regularly playing the odds. You'll win some trades and lose others, but in the end you'll come out way ahead if you're patient and disciplined. That's exactly what got them 86 wins and all the excitement about this season that goes with it, so I don't understand why anyone would be close-minded about similar moves. It's often not even a step back just a few months later. Look at what selling high on Thornburg, Smith, and Jeffress got them. Look at how Lucroy's and Gomez's replacements were better than they were just a half a season later. And conversely, look what failing to sell high on Villar and Guerra got them. All those actual or proposed trades would have been seen as giving up on the season, and yet all of the ones that happened fetched at least one player (and sometimes more) who ended up much better than the guy who was traded away. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the could trade Knebel for two bullpen prospects who are better and cheaper than Knebel some time in 2019, and maybe even sooner. All that said, they wouldn't get the kind of offer people here might think they would because other teams know how hard it's going to be for Knebel to duplicate his success. Control can improve, but he doesn't project to be an elite reliever in the long term as it stands right now. If they got an offer worthy of the season he just had, the Brewers would be fools to keep him, but that's probably a moot point.

I get that you were trying to get someone to be a little more realistic about his value. However, I think even the Rogers deal is aiming too high. That was a pretty embarrassing trade for the Pirates, not because of what they gave up, but because they gave it up for Jason Rogers, who by almost any measure was a slightly more accomplished minor league player and much better on defense than Aguilar. I think any team that wants really Aguilar knows they can just wait for him to be waived, unless they take him as a tertiary piece in a trade.

I like Aguilar a lot but if we got a deal similar to Jason Rogers for him I would grab it in a heartbeat. Shaw can play first if neither Thames or Braun are available. A couple of tickets (or any ticket) for Aguilar would be a nice add I think, considering I think he is going to be the casualty of this preseason :/ I don't see anybody giving up value for him. There's too many guys like Mark Reynolds available for next to nothing. Guys like Aguilar are kind of a dime a dozen. That's why Matt Clark and Jason Rogers aren't even stateside anymore. I'd be down to give him one more year if they can trade Braun to LAD, but he's just a AAAA masher who really doesn't even mash that well and should rightly be a DH somewhere in Asia or something like that, or a career minor leaguer.

That would clear up a lot of the roster issues this team is facing. I do wonder if they would just dump Kemp outright after that deal, though? I would hate to see them turn around and have to surrender prospects to get out from under that contract. Is there another high-salary player out there at more of a position of need for the Brewers that they might be able to flip Kemp for? Kipnis maybe? The Brewers would be doing the Dodgers a huge favor by taking on Kemp's contract as well. The Dodgers would have to add some pretty substantial value to make it work. Not Bellinger or Seager, obviously, but maybe a higher end pitching prospect or something along those lines. Definitely cut Kemp. It would be about the prospects. I'm trying really hard to just ignore the people who say "but Braun is better than Kemp and Kemp is a bad contract!" When people aren't even willing to engage with the nuances of a situation, it's difficult to talk to them. The hard part would obviously be getting a little worse this year, but I think they can afford to lose Braun. The benefits of a prospect or two (not gonna pretend I know LAD's system very well but I'm sure it's worth their while to give up legit prospect value in a deal like this) and a ton of payroll flexibility after the 2019 season outweigh the loss of Braun IMO. You keep Aguilar as the RHB 1B and have Phillips as the only 4th outfielder, and you aren't forced into a Santana trade until you find one you like. You would be tacitly acknowledging that you're a few years away from consistently being a true contender, but they'd still have money for a couple short-term free agents and would still be squarely in the hunt for a wild card.

It wouldn't take half the value of a Bellinger or a Seager, let alone both of them, to be more than fair for the Brewers. And you can't trade Braun at the waiver deadline unless it's to the Dodgers, because he has said he won't go anywhere else and he has a no-trade clause. It's actually almost miraculous that there's a conceivable way to get something for Braun in a trade. The only team he would waive his no-trade clause for needs a left-fielder and needs to shave a few million in salary to get under the luxury tax, even if it means adding an extra year on a questionable contract. And the Brewers need to clear up a logjam. Both teams would be fools to look the gift horse in the mouth and hold out for a better deal. How else can the Dodgers get rid of Kemp's salary and get a big upgrade? How else can the Brewers get something for Braun and clear up the logjam at 1B and the outfield in one fell swoop? Not to mention avoiding another Hart/Weeks/Ramirez/Gallardo/Marcum/Wolf/Garza/Lohse situation where you keep a guy too long until he has negative value on his contract, which was the defining behavior of the last regime. Making trades like this is what made them successful last year in the first place. It's foolish to act like they need Braun to be successful; if anything, it's more likely that they need to open up playing time for young guys at or near their prime like Phillips, Broxton, Perez, and Aguilar.

Honestly Braun for Kemp + prospects makes the most sense. You can keep Yelich in LF full time with Santana in RF and Phillips covering all over the outfield, particularly as a defensive sub for Santana. Aguilar can stay, too - not that I like him, but I'd rather have Aguilar + prospects than have Braun in an awkward platoon with Thames, who's better against RHP's and should get more starts than Braun anyway. Then when everyone blows all their cash on next year's free agents, the Brewers will have another huge contract off the books for another spending spree after 2019, at a time when many of their best young players and prospects should be entering their primes or close to it. I would just cut Kemp. His contract does end one year earlier than Braun's, which makes it palatable. And it makes plenty of sense for the Dodgers too. Let them have their day; they won't be on top forever, and a move like this just helps the Brewers position themselves to be better than the Dodgers in a few years.

I totally get where your coming from, and we want the same things. I think we just have a different idea on how to get there. I have to say, if Stearns does follow your train of thought, it would be a novel approach, and he'd be betting a lot on himself and his player personnel department to know which players to sell high on, and which players are building blocks. He'd also have to be extremely thick-skinned, because the majority of the fanbase isn't going to take too kindly to trading off young pre-arb talent that can currently help the team. The typical fan doesn't care about whether a player is in arbitration or not. All they see is your contending team just traded its proven closer for a package of young prospects. Perhaps the "Brewers Way" can become the MLB's version of the "Patriots Way", but they sure as heck aren't there yet. Isn't that one of the reasons the A's were so good for so long? They just kept trading away stars under team control because they knew they wouldn't be able to pay them soon, and they had an absolutely remarkable run for a team with such limited financial means. What's ironic about it, and about the Brewers' success last year, is that "selling high" is often a better way to "win now" than by pursuing conventional "win now" moves, also known in many cases as "buying high", which is never a good philosophy in an asset management business (even if the fans themselves don't appreciate or care about the asset management aspect of it). If they had the stones to trade guys like Anderson, Shaw, Davies, and Knebel right now, it wouldn't shock me if at least one of the guys each player was traded for was a better player within less than 2 years. And possibly 2 or 3 of them, in some cases. I like this team a lot and would be a little disappointed if that happened, but I'd trust their scouting and get over it in a hurry.

Putouts in LF have ended up between 8512 & 9020 over the last five compared to 9401 & 9771 over the last five years for RF putouts, so it looks like there are typically more opportunities in RF. That's outs though, not necessarily plays, correct? Opportunities are based on plays. My hypothesis is that there are less putouts because balls are hit harder to LF (RH pull hitters). You're correct about putouts not really being a relevant stat, but I'm not sure your hypothesis is even necessary. RF's have more putouts simply because runners occasionally try to advance from 1st to 3rd on singles to RF and try to tag from 2nd to 3rd on fly balls to RF, which they hardly ever do on fly balls to LF. So of course there's more putouts, but also more successful base-runners in those situations. Both LF and RF are roughly the same distance from home, so the LF actually might have more opportunities to throw home because more balls are pulled and there are more right-handed hitters. If you had the numbers to back it up, you could argue that the best arm should be in LF for that reason. However, I'm not sure how many contested plays actually result in a throw all the way home anyway. A halfway decent hard throw to a good relay guy, especially a 3B or SS who probably has a strong, accurate arm, is pretty common too. Is a strong arm in LF enough to negate the advantages of having a good arm in RF to keep guys from getting to 3B in the first place? I like your willingness to challenge the dogma. However, I'm willing to bet that the strong arm in RF argument holds up pretty well under statistical scrutiny. I'm guessing the chances to advance to 3rd, which aren't even close to counterbalanced by situations calling for a throw from LF all the way to 1B, more than outweighs the extra balls hit to LF.

I agree to an extent, but it is more important in RF because there are many more situations where you have to throw to 3b from the outfield. Last time I checked, you don't have to keep a runner from taking an extra base by going from 3b to 1b, though Jean Segura might have something to say about that. There's also the question of tagging up and getting to 3b on a fly ball, which is not much of an issue of flies to LF. You're right that throws home are the most important, and there's slightly more of those in LF than RF. Then again, there's much better relay options at SS and 3B. This is a situation where I'm willing to challenge dogma a little, but I suspect the dogma holds up to scrutiny better than some other maxims.

"Complexion of our team" seems perfectly fine when someone says it, but when it's written, I can only think of freckles and zits.

All good points. Youth and versatility are important. Choosing Walker over Villar or Perez would be pretty risky. Choosing Lucroy over Vogt would be an easy choice if it were a real possibility one a 1-year deal and there were no extraneous factors, but there are. I support an upgrade at catcher if it's possible. I think there's a better chance of them giving up a nice bundle of prospects for Realmuto than signing Lucroy. Not that that's likely either, obviously.

It was implied that I meant it only in comparison to Walker, who has terrible range now. I'm not saying Villar's range makes up for his defensive mistakes enough to make him a neutral defender, but only to make him on par with Walker (and possibly better as soon as this year). Metrics hate slow infielders, and rightfully so. I remember when Rollins and Jeter were the two worst defensive shortstops* in baseball despite having the best fielding percentages and making the fewest mistakes. I absolutely do believe that Villar's speed on the basepaths makes up for his miscues though. It's demoralizing when you make a stupid out, but objectively the net effect isn't any worse than getting caught stealing any other way. Villar's steals and success rate, combining with the harder-to-quantify ability to beat double plays or advance an extra base on hits and sac flies, make him a plus base-runner despite the miscues. *ETA: Lol, how could I forget Yuniesky Betancourt. He was other-worldly. I must have suppressed my memories of him. Similar dynamics there, though - range is ridiculously important for middle infielders.